> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.ipswich.co.uk/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # County Council votes to explore Suffolk asylum referendum - URL: https://www.ipswich.co.uk/county-council-votes-to-explore-suffolk-asylum-referendum/ - Published: 2026-10-08T15:42:12.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-08T15:48:44.000Z - Description: Suffolk County Council has backed a motion to explore holding a countywide referendum on housing asylum seekers, with 60% of councillors voting in favour. The decision followed a heated debate which exposed sharp divisions over cost, legality and motive. - Author: Oliver Rouane-Williams - Tags: Long Reads, Suffolk County Council, Michael Hadwen, Philip Faircloth-Mutton, Simon Aalders, Martin Cook, Richard Rout, Andrew Stringer, Inga Lockington Councillors at Endeavour House approved the motion on the afternoon of Thursday 8 October 2026, after more than an hour of argument that ranged from the sinking of the Titanic to the European Convention on Human Rights. The result was 60% for, 20% against and 20% abstaining. What the chamber actually agreed to is narrower than the headline suggests. The motion, in full, resolves that the council will "explore the holding of a referendum on Thursday 6 May 2027 on the issue of housing asylum seekers in the county of Suffolk". The notice of motion describes any such vote as advisory. No question has been set, no cost has been agreed, and no legal advice has been published. ## The plan behind the motion The motion was lodged on 28 September 2026 by Councillor Philip Faircloth-Mutton and seconded by Councillor Tristan Gale. Its stated trigger is the Home Office proposal to convert RAF Barnham, near Thetford on Suffolk's north-western edge, into a site to accommodate people seeking asylum. According to the notice of motion, a Home Office fact sheet states the site would be used for a minimum of 10 years, and it has been widely reported that a maximum of 1,250 people would be housed there at any one time. The document also records that, at a meeting with Norfolk County Council leadership on 5 August 2026, Home Office officials said those accommodated would be exclusively men, the majority single young men, and that there was no maximum cap on numbers. In July, West Suffolk Council unanimously agreed the site was not suitable to house asylum seekers. These claims are those of the proposer, set out in the notice of motion, and have not been independently verified. The Home Office has not commented on the detail of the proposal or its timetable. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/29/1e/291e4b7f-e551-4458-b546-61963954b22f/content/images/2026/10/Screenshot-2026-10-08-at-16.40.25-2.png) RAF Barnham (Photo: Google Earth) ## 'The question that should be asked is whether democracy is worth the cost' Opening the debate, Councillor Faircloth-Mutton told councillors a referendum was "absolutely necessary". His argument rested on mandate: housing asylum seekers at unused military bases, he said, was not in the Labour manifesto in 2024, and the government therefore had "no mandate in Suffolk". He said the proposal had caused deep concern in Barnham and beyond, that the facility would hold 1,250 people near a village of less than half that size, and that residents had held weeks of protests. He criticised those in Westminster and Whitehall for not meeting the people most affected. "The question that should be asked is whether democracy is worth the cost," he said. "And I believe it is." Councillor Faircloth-Mutton cited OECD figures that 40% of people in the UK were satisfied with opportunities to voice opinions on local matters, against 65% in Switzerland, and that 33% in the UK trusted national government, against 62% in Switzerland. He said the decision to call a referendum did not require a vote of full council, but that a mandate from the chamber was "morally right" and "politically necessary". He closed: "Long live democracy." Seconding, Councillor Gale said the referendum was "needed for the constituents of Suffolk" and would be "a voice for the people". He said he had served two operational tours in Iraq and four in Afghanistan. Councillor Gale made a series of claims about the people who would be housed at the site, including that they had "no known history" and had not been vetted, and said their culture "does not assimilate with rural Suffolk folk in our towns". ## The cost nobody could agree on If one thread ran through the opposition, it was money. By the end of the debate, councillors had heard at least five different estimates. Councillor James Patchett, speaking for the opposition, drew on previous countywide standalone votes such as police and crime commissioner elections. A standalone referendum, he said, could range from £900,000 to potentially £2m; held on the same day as another election, it would still cost in the region of £250,000 to £500,000. Councillor Richard Rout, leader of the Conservative group, put the council's own officer estimate at about £650,000 and the district officers' estimate at £1m to £2m. Councillor Andrew Stringer, leader of the Green opposition, said the council's section 151 officer had told councillors it would be "£2m plus". Councillor Inga Lockington said her own enquiries suggested £2m to £3m. Councillor Faircloth-Mutton's position throughout was that holding the vote alongside next year's district and borough elections would minimise costs, adding only one ballot paper. The figures land against a difficult financial backdrop. Councillor Patchett pointed out that the council faced an estimated overspend of £7.8m, with reserves being used to cover it, which would push the authority below its recommended 5% minimum. He asked how reserves would be rebuilt if half a million or a million pounds or more went on a referendum, and said he wanted to see the section 151 officer's adequacy report and whether the cost would trigger the need for a section 114 notice. ## Whether it can be done at all The second line of attack was legal. Councillor Martin Cook, leader of the Labour group, said section 116 of the Local Government Act 2003 allows a council to poll residents about its own services and spending — but that asylum accommodation is the Home Office's responsibility, so the vote could not be a section 116 poll. It would instead be an advisory exercise under general powers, with no legal standing. That distinction carried consequences, he argued. The full electoral register can only be used for elections and section 116 polls, so the council would have to rely on the open register. The poll could not be combined with the May elections, because combination is reserved for elections and statutory referendums, meaning a separate countywide exercise paid for by the county. And the motion did not say who would be entitled to vote. Councillor Lockington made a related point: she said there was no legal framework requiring a district returning officer to run a non-statutory advisory poll at the request of another authority. Councillor Rout said his group had submitted its legal points to the council before the meeting and the council had declined to answer. He also said the council could have asked Barnham Parish Council whether it would support being the focus of a countywide referendum, and that to his knowledge it had not been asked, learning of the plan from a press release. "We do not have a cost. We do not know if it is legal, and we do not know if the residents of Barnham support it," he said, arguing none of it required "investigation or exploration". He urged the administration to bring the motion back with answers. Responding at the close, Councillor Faircloth-Mutton said the council would seek advice as part of the exploration exercise, that a budgeted sum would be confirmed, and that the question would be set in conjunction with the Electoral Commission, as other authorities had done. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/29/1e/291e4b7f-e551-4458-b546-61963954b22f/content/images/2026/10/Screenshot-2026-10-08-at-16.40.25-1.png) RAF Barnham (Photo: Google Earth) ## Barnham's own councillor The most pointed intervention came from the division that contains the site. Councillor Harry Richardson said the government's announcement had caused "a great deal of distress and uncertainty", and that he shared residents' frustration at a decision made without warning or consultation. He said a referendum was not what they needed. He told the chamber that Barnham Parish Council had worked with him, the district councillor and the police and crime commissioner to set out its "strong, universal, and unequivocal opposition" to the site, and that its objections concerned "the place, not the people". Since the motion was published, he said, he had not received "a single phone call, email, letter, or message" from a Barnham resident supporting it, but had received quite a few opposing it. With the site due to become operational this year, a vote in seven months' time felt like "kicking the can down the road". "My residents are looking for leadership from those in power," he said. "And this is not leadership. This is an act of abrogation of responsibility." He pointed to alternatives already on the table: a parish poll, material planning considerations, and a joint proposal from the Norfolk and Suffolk chief constables to buy the site from the Ministry of Defence. That last point was picked up by Councillor Asa Downing, who backed the motion but on different grounds. He said both constabularies used RAF Barnham as a specialist operations and training centre, that they had until recently been in the process of purchasing it, and that the two chief constables had jointly written to the Minister of State for Policing and Crime. Army cadets, he said, also still used the site. We haven't verified these claims. Councillor Richardson's position drew a sharp response from Councillor Simon Aalders, who said he had attended several meetings in Barnham and had seen Councillor Richardson there only once. ## Other views With their typical flamboyance, Councillor Christopher Hudson, cabinet member for highways, said the European Convention on Human Rights "binds the British people to a dangerous nonsense" and should be cast "into the dustbin of history". Councillor Rupert Tonkin-Galvin reached for the Titanic, asking of the Barnham proposal: "Where are the women and the children?" Councillor David Hill suggested a list of further matters the council might "explore", including holding a referendum among asylum seekers themselves. Councillor Vicky Armstrong spoke in support of the motion, citing concerns about violence against women and girls, and made a series of claims about asylum seekers, sexual offences and deportation. Councillor Hudson cited figures of 38,086 people detected entering the UK through illegal routes, including 33,374 by small boat. We have not been able to verify those claims or figures. Both Councillor Stringer and Councillor Lockington drew on personal connections to asylum. Councillor Stringer opened by speaking about people who had come to Suffolk to claim asylum, including his own father, and named a doctor and a man who had reopened two post offices in his area. He said he "really struggled" with the motion and could only think it "completely divisive", objecting to both the distant date and the word "explore", which he said "gets them off the hook". "This is about political theatre and political advantage next May," he said. Councillor Lockington said the council should instead have called on the government to clear the asylum backlog by hiring more caseworkers, lift the ban on asylum seekers working after three months, provide safe and legal routes, and increase cross-border policing. She cited figures suggesting more than 17,000 people had waited longer than a year for an initial assessment as of September 2025\. "Get on with the government, and that is what this motion should have been about," she said. "And I think we could all have supported that." ## The leader's defence Councillor Hadwen said he felt compelled to speak after hearing "such loose telling of facts". He said he had attended the first protest at RAF Barnham and had gone to Barnham Parish Council at the chair's invitation, where he said he was heckled. He said his party had been first to meet the government to challenge the plan, and that Thetford Town Council, Barnham Parish Council and West Suffolk Council were now working together without Reform UK at the table. On the referendum itself, he said: "Is a referendum perfect? No. It is not my favourite form of democracy," he said. "However, when the government is no longer listening, when they are changing the rules as we are going along, we have to find every way to fight this." ## The bottom line Suffolk County Council has voted to explore a 'referendum'. It has not committed to hold one, costed one, or established that it can lawfully run one — and on the only point every speaker agreed upon, that the Barnham proposal is urgent, a vote scheduled for May 2027 answers nothing in the meantime. The exploration will now have to supply what the debate could not: a cost the council can defend, legal advice it is willing to publish, and a question worth asking. Until it does, the residents of Barnham are no closer to knowing what happens to the airbase on their doorstep. --- **Don't forget:** If you enjoy our content, please [add Ipswich.co.uk as a "preferred source" on Google](https://google.com/preferences/source?q=ipswich.co.uk&ref=ipswich.co.uk) so you can easily find more of the content you value. [Add as a preferred source on Google](https://google.com/preferences/source?q=ipswich.co.uk&ref=ipswich.co.uk) --- ### This article cost us \~£135 to produce It's free for you to read thanks to the generous support of our partners. Please support us by supporting them.